Undue influence claims on the rise

We are continuing to see an increasing number of cases involving undue influence and last week another judgment was handed down in the case of Jones v Jones [2023] EWHC 1457 (Ch).

An undue influence claim in the context of a will comes about when it is suspected that the deceased has done something that they might not have done had it not been for the influence of another. This is invariably the main beneficiary under the deceased’s current will or at least someone who is set to benefit considerably more than they were to benefit under a previous will or intestacy.

In these cases the deceased’s own judgement has been abandoned having succumbed to the manipulative behaviour of another. In order to succeed, the claimant must be able to show that the deceased was coerced into making a Will, which in effect means that the person making the will was influenced to the extent that their free will was completely oppressed.

Direct evidence of undue influence is unusual, given that the very nature of the act means that it happens behind closed doors hence these are claims not always straightforward. The type of scenario commonly seen in these types of cases is where one child benefits over other children and the decision is not supported by what were understood to be the deceased wishes prior to death. Another possible warning sign is where the primary caregiver, particularly of a vulnerable or elderly individual, benefits greatly from a will.

Jones v Jones

In Jones, the validity of the will of the late Daphne Jones was challenged on the grounds that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity at the time the will was executed, or that she lacked knowledge and approval of it or that it was a result of undue influence by her daughter, Ceri Jones. The will was executed on 4 July 2021 and witnessed by a neighbour and a chartered accountant. Ceri was appointed as executor and was the sole beneficiary of the residuary estate. The main asset in the estate was the Deceased’s property. The Deceased signed a lasting power of attorney on the same day which was witnessed by the same chartered accountant who certified that as far as he knew, the deceased understood the purpose and scope of the document and no fraud or undue pressure was being applied in its creation.

The deceased passed on 16 September 2021, aged 82 years old. The will was subsequently challenged by the deceased’s other children and some grandchildren.

The Deceased was diagnosed with early mixed dementia in February 2020. Towards the end of 2020, one of the deceased four children was diagnosed with a terminal illness and died in February 2021. Her mother was understandably said to be affected by her death. Around this time, Ceri went to stay with her mother and stayed there until her death.

In the months following various different witnesses gave evidence to the effect that the ability to make contact with the Deceased – whether by phone or in person – became progressively harder. The court formed a view that the evidence supported a “vivid picture of the Deceased becoming increasingly isolated from them soon after Ceri Jones went to day” and of Ceri “saying things to her which were not true”.

The judge went on to find that whilst only Ceri would know what happened in the period between April to July 2021 he was satisfied that the Deceased “signed her will not as a free agent, but because her volition had been overcome, without convincing her judgment” by the undue influence of her daughter for the following reasons:

1. From the time of her sister's terminal illness, Ceri believed that she would inherit her mother’s house;

2. The Deceased’s settled intention was to leave the house between her four daughters and thereafter that her deceased daughter’s share pass to her children;

3. The Deceased was devastated by her daughter’s death and probably still deeply grieving at the time of the will;

4. From the time Ceri moved in with the Deceased she increasingly isolated her and by the time of the execution of the will that isolation was substantially complete;

5. Ceri reacted angrily to the Deceased and her brother discussing the property being shared equally between the four daughters;

6. Ceri repeated to her mother untruths;

7. By the time the will was signed, and at least for some two to three months previously, the Deceased was very vulnerable physically as well as mentally, and dependant to a substantial extent solely upon Ceri, because of the isolation.;

8. Ceri’s evidence in relation to the making of the will was inconsistent;

9. The will was signed without any involvement from a solicitor or further medical examination;

10. It is likely that after the will was executed Ceri was involved in limiting the Deceased’s contact with family members to written communications only and sought to build barriers between her and medical professionals.

The will was consequently found to be invalid and the estate held on intestacy.

For completeness, the judge had already concluded that whilst it was proper to raise concerns around testamentary capacity in his judgment on the tactility of the evidence, the appropriate inference was that the Deceased had capacity when signing the will and that whilst there were the requisite suspicious circumstances for a want of knowledge and approval claim, the suspicion was dispelled because the will was straightforward and the court accepted the evidence of the will drafter that the Deceased had told him what to put in it.

FURTHER INFORMATION

For further information on the issues raised in this blog, please contact Katherine Pymont or any member of the Dispute Resolution team. 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Katherine Pymont is a Senior Associate in our Dispute Resolution team. She specialises in Wills, Trusts and Inheritance Disputes. Katherine's experience includes challenging the validity of wills (including claims for lack of testamentary capacity, want of knowledge and approval, fraud, forgery and undue influence), claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, removal of executors and trustees, breach of trust claims, fraud cases involving trust structures and professional negligence claims relating to wills and trusts.